Jump to content


Photo

Event order in Narrative Descendants Report

Narrative Reports Event order

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 gac3rd

gac3rd

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 01:41 PM

Complete newbie. Trying to do a narrative descendants report by using the suggestions in Jerry Bryan's excellent post.

 

http://forums.rootsm...ge-2#entry92079

 

Would like the facts to appear in chronological order, rather than some facts (ie marriage) appearing after the death of the person. I gather this is because  family facts appear after personal facts in RM reports.

 

http://forums.rootsmagic.com/index.php?/topic/13385-timeline-out-of-order/?hl=%2Bnarrative+%2Breport+%2Bevent+%2Border#entry62485 

 

In Jerry's example report, events seem to appear in chronological order.

 

Is there a magic work around within RM7 to make this happen? One possibility is to use, say,  MS Word to rearrange after the fact. But of course it would be much nicer to have an option to sort in chronological order, ignoring personal and family.

 

Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.

 

 



#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3369 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 06:21 PM

The manual workaround is to share family facts (AKA spouse facts) such as marriage and divorce with the principals to the fact. This causes such facts to appear twice in descendant narrative reports - once in the list of family facts and again in timeline order for each principal.

 

I tend not to use RM's shared fact facility very much because RM's shared facts are likely to be lost if your RM data is exported to any other genealogy software. But in this case, even if the shared version of a marriage fact is lost upon RM export, the family/spouse version of the marriage fact will be retained just fine. So all that's lost by exporting RM data in this use of shared facts is report formatting.

 

Jerry



#3 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6131 posts

Posted 19 December 2018 - 06:48 PM

"So all that's lost by exporting RM data in this use of shared facts is report formatting."

RM's report formatting cannot be exported anyway. The importing software controls its report formats and, possibly, does not group couple facts separately the way RM does.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#4 gac3rd

gac3rd

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 02:53 PM

Jerry, thanks for your suggestion. I appreciate it.

 

It worked in placing the marriage where I wanted it, but it also left the marriage where I did not want it. I could deal with that. The thing that gave me pause was that sharing a fact was quite labor intensive.

 

Perhaps I missed the obvious, but to share a fact I was faced with a choice of (i) a very cumbersome search for surname, given name, or (ii) scrolling down through a list of around 6000 names. The thought of doing this for hundreds of marriages made me start looking for other possible solutions.

 

Don't mean to mention any forbidden words, but Family Historian 6 produced a workable report straight from the box. Not the format I might choose for myself. But it is pretty readable, and I think can be massaged into shape using Word.  I have a few tens of hours into RM over a month of use, not to mention the $30 or whatever it was, and I never managed to get to this point.

 

Since my basic information in on Ancestry, it makes sense to use Roots Magic to export the media files, but at this point it appears I will likely use FH to do the reports. I sure it will prove to have its share of frustrations, but at least for me at this time it seems workable.

 

Thanks again for the help. RM has a great forum.



#5 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3369 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 11:24 PM

RM's Descendant Narrative reports are in one of three basic formats: NGSQ (National Genealogical Society Quarterly), NEHGS (New England Genealogical and Historical Register), and "outline". RM actually supports three "outline" formats, but I group them together because the best I can tell they are identical formats and differ only in the numbering system.

 

I've never been sure if the NGSQ and NEHGS systems specify complete specifications for a report format, or if they just specify numbering schemes. I've searched for years for an authoritative answer to this question. I think the distinction is important because I'm not sure if RM actually has to separate out things like marriage and divorce facts to comply with the NGSQ and NEHGS systems provided in complies with their respective numbering schemes.. In any case, RM's implementation of NGSQ and NEHGS systems creates three groupings of facts - one grouping of facts for the first spouse, one grouping of facts common to the two spouses such as marriage and divorce plus a list of the children, and one grouping of facts for the second spouse. It's the grouping of facts common to the two spouses to which you object. I assume you would still want to see the list of the children.

 

I'm not entirely happy with RM's implementation of the NGSQ and NEHGS systems because of the way they groups the facts. But I think that all three of RM's implementations of "outline" formats is even worse because it can separate out the children of a family to be dozens or even hundreds of pages apart in a report.

 

Even though it's not perfect, I do think the trick of sharing marriage and divorce facts helps. Also, I frequently split the marriage fact and sometimes the divorce fact into multiple facts. The basic Marriage fact just has the basic marriage date and place and no note. It is shared with the parties to the marriage. And when I have the data, I have a Marriage Record fact with additional information in the note - usually a full transcription of the courthouse marriage record. The Marriage Record fact is not shared with the principals to the marriage and therefore appears only in the grouping of facts common to the two spouses. That seems to help also.

 

Finally, I put additional white space between three groupings of facts. That also helps.

 

It's not perfect, but it's the best I can do right now short of abandoning RM and adopting Microsoft Word as my genealogy software of choice.

 

Jerry



#6 gac3rd

gac3rd

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 10:53 PM

Jerry, thanks for your response. I had no problem with the sharing working and producing a result that was at least marginally acceptable.

 

It was the effort involved with setting up the sharing, and the thought of having to repeat this effort from scratch for a couple of hundred marriages, that brought me to my knees. Prehaps I completely messed up, but the work needed to share a fact seemed incredible to me. And the fact that I had to start from scratch with every marriage .... And for no reason. Making sharing easy, and setting up up so it can be repeated is not that hard. This may have been my fault, but I did not see an easy way.

 

A complete aside: You made a remark in a different post that writing a narrative from a list of ill defined facts is a nontrivial problem. True. It is conceptually hard, but it dawned on me that it is a translation problem. It is amenable to large samples and machine learning. If the Google decided it was worth the money, and they ordered the Google translate team to tackle it, an acceptable product would be produced in short order.  Hopefully, this ability will migrate downward to us mere mortals, and someone will assign it as a sophomore project in a programming class. :)

 

Thanks for your efforts. Have a good solstice season.



#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3369 posts

Posted 24 December 2018 - 08:26 AM

(Please delete this message. Thanks, Jerry)